This is an oldie, but it needs to be revisited, since the Obots still argue that Obama is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, thats why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause.

It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:

"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.

"That is mine, too," said Leahy.

What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.

Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case.

If I remember correctly, his mom moved across the border from Canada when quite young. I couldn't find any information on naturalization proceedings, and I'm not sure there was much in the way of a formal process during most of the 19th century.

He was born in the U.S. but his father didn't get his U.S. citizenship until years after Arthur's birth, a fact that Arthur went to great lengths to hide.

But the only time that "Native born" verses "Natural born" matters is for eligibility to the office of President.

And veep, of course.

You are making the assumption, without much evidence that I'm aware of, that there is a difference.

No government statute or regulation I'm aware of draws such a distinction, which would create three classes of American citizenship: native-born, natural born and naturalized. In the Wong case I don't believe the justices drew such a distinction. In fact, I believe their implication was that native-born = natural-born. It's been a long time since I read thru the case, but if I remember correctly they used the terms somewhat interchangeably.

I know of no reason to believe native-born and natural born are not the same, leaving us with two groups of citizens, native/natural born and naturalized.

I was referring to the “other” American president I mentioned farther up.

My apologies that I can’t remember which one this was. Certainly nobody seemed concerned about it at the time.

In Arthur’s case, an opponent first claimed he was born in Ireland. When that was disproven, he switched it to claiming he was born in Canada. I’m unaware of anybody at the time being particularly concerned about his father’s citizenship status at the time of his birth.

Of course, and anyone else succeeding to the office of President. (That is if the Speaker of the House would be required to succeed to the office, she would need to be a Natural born citizen, else the next in line would do so in her stead.)

You are making the assumption, without much evidence that I'm aware of, that there is a difference.

Mr. Binney in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: 'The common- law principle of allegiance was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned [namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to], such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the states before the constitution, or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the congress of the United States.' Page 20. 'The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen , and by operation of the same principle.' [169 U.S. 649, 666] Page 22, note.

This certainly implies that "citizen" and "natural born child of a citizen" are not the same thing, and in fact gives a basic definition of "Natural Born". That is "child of a citizen'"

64
posted on 12/10/2009 10:17:37 AM PST
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

Of course, and anyone else succeeding to the office of President. (That is if the Speaker of the House would be required to succeed to the office, she would need to be a Natural born citizen, else the next in line would do so in her stead.)

You are making the assumption, without much evidence that I'm aware of, that there is a difference.

Mr. Binney in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: 'The common- law principle of allegiance was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned [namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to], such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the states before the constitution, or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the congress of the United States.' Page 20. 'The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen , and by operation of the same principle.' [169 U.S. 649, 666] Page 22, note.

This certainly implies that the "child of an alien, if born in the country" and "natural born child of a citizen" are not the same thing, and in fact gives a basic definition of "Natural Born". That is "child of a citizen'"

65
posted on 12/10/2009 10:18:53 AM PST
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen , and by operation of the same principle.' [169 U.S. 649, 666] Page 22, note.

I believe you are misreading the sentence. Notice he does not say "natural-born citizen," but "natural-born child of a citizen."

More critically he says the child of a citizen and the child of an alien are both citizens, by operation of the same principle.

IOW, they are citizens for the same reason and of the same type. There is no difference between them.

Native born = natural born, whether the parents are citizens or aliens.

The common-law principle of allegiance was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the constitution

As I hope you know, the English common-law principle of allegiance and citizenship is that citizenship springs from location of birth, not ancestry. This is in direct contrast to de Vattel and his continental European civil "Law of Nations" in which citizenship is inherited from the parents.

Some on FR keep trying to drag de Vattel into the issue, when Blackstone is a far better authority on what the Founders would have taken natural-born to mean.

The statement, “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen”, makes no statement whatsoever about the ‘natural born’ status of a person born of one citizen parent and one non citizen parent.

The whole natural-born discussion is repeatedly contaminated by people attempting to impose their own definition the term

My opinion, or yours, or anybody else's as to what the term ought to mean is irrelevant. The only issue is what an average well-educated voter reading the Constitution in 1783 would have thought the term meant.

Since the common law was the background for all legal terms of the time, the common law meaning should apply as the default. Under common law, native born = natural born.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.